Ingram was stalling out the offense at the end of the game not Kuz. I have no idea what Luke was watching at the end of the game. BI was getting punked at the end of last night's game trying too hard to be the hero.

Ingram was stalling out the offense at the end of the game not Kuz. I have no idea what Luke was watching at the end of the game. BI was getting punked at the end of last night's game trying too hard to be the hero.

Your best scorer shouldn't be setting picks for worse shooters. He was slipping the picks like he should.

You should not be slipping all the time unless the defense is letting you slip and get the ball back for the quic score everytime. Steph Curry sets screens all the time (both on and off ball) for inferior shooters and scorers because it's part of their offense. Slipping is one of the options, but you need to mix it up depending on what the defense is doing.

So Luke is Byron on the Brandon Farewell Tour when Ingram is only in his 2nd season....

kevin61 wrote:

He's getting the Kobe treatment because they see how hard he's working and they admire his attitude. That's why he's earned their respect.

Darius Morris was a hard worker too. But he didn't get a starting position he was getting outplayed for handed to him while he was protected and others were bashed for the same mistakes he himself was making.

The best way to develop Ingram is NOT to coddle him. They're treating it like "But..he's Magic's guy..so we gotta make sure we keep Magic happy.'

It's like Luke is afraid to bench Ingram or something when it's obvious he hasn't earned the starting spot and has been outplayed this pre-season.

I get the feeling that Ingram could struggle for 8 games and Luke will say "he'll get there eventually." but KCP or Randle could play very well over those same 8 games, have a bad 9th game and Luke will go "Well we may need to change some stuff up, I wasn't happy with some of the mistakes of the last game."

Kuzma's end of the game heroics "Well I felt he was trying to force stuff and coming off screens and shooting and that's not what we want."

Ingram's end of the game heroics "Well you gotta be happy he stepped up and did it. I mean he has to get used to that as he's gonna be our guy going down the stretch."

“He wants to do so much, he’s so excited to do it that a lot of it at the end of those games he’s stalling out the offense because he’s just picking and popping and that’s not what we want. So last night was a good learning experience for him as far as the defenses get a lot more difficult in the final two or three minutes, and that’s when you really have to rely on setting the screen and running the offense.”

“There’ll be times that Julius might be playing backup 5 and Kuz at the 4. There’s times where Larry might be backup 5, Julius at the 4, and Kuz at the 3. There’s a lot of responsibility, but all they need to do is know that when they’re on the court they gotta play hard and play the way that we want to play and they’ll be fine.”

Walton’s assertion that the starting spot will be about more than just who is playing best individually is interesting, and could be read as reasoning for how well Kuzma is playing not being enough to get him named as the team’s starting power forward on opening night.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

“There’ll be times that Julius might be playing backup 5 and Kuz at the 4. There’s times where Larry might be backup 5, Julius at the 4, and Kuz at the 3. There’s a lot of responsibility, but all they need to do is know that when they’re on the court they gotta play hard and play the way that we want to play and they’ll be fine.”

Walton’s assertion that the starting spot will be about more than just who is playing best individually is interesting, and could be read as reasoning for how well Kuzma is playing not being enough to get him named as the team’s starting power forward on opening night.

At this point, I think the only starting spots that are locked down are Lonzo at the 1 and Brook at the 5. I'm OK with KCP at the 2 even if JC has been playing better during the preseason, but that's because I feel KCP's defense is needed and KCP is a better fit alongside Lonzo. As for who starts at the 3 and 4, I think Luke needs to go with whichever 2 guys makes the starting unit as strong as possible.

I agree with Luke that you don't just roll out the 2 guys who are playing the best at those positions without considering chemistry. However, I also don't think the Lakers can afford to strengthen the 2nd unit at the expense of the 1st. Who cares how dynamic our 2nd unit is if they are constantly playing catch-up as a result of the 1st unit's deficiencies? We saw how that played out last season.

At this point, I don't like the idea of starting BI and Nance. We all know about BI's struggles, and at this point, it would be better to let him build confidence against 2nd stringers. Nance is a nice intangibles guy, but those intangibles don't make up for the fact that he's a reluctant offensive player and an average rebounder at the 4. A starting lineup of Lonzo, KCP, BI, Nance and Lopez won't be able to score enough, and I don't think that unit can hang it's hat on creating TOs and getting out in transition.

If we start Kuz and Randle at the 3 and 4, then that improves our offense significantly while not losing much (if anything) on defense. I don't need to justify why Kuz needs to start, but Randle is the best fit at the 4 as well. Some may not like his habit of stopping the ball at times, but he also provides rebounding and elite speed at the 4. Also, in terms of isos, I trust him more to iso than anyone else on the team because he has the biggest speed advantage by position and has the handles to exploit slower 4s. He'll also have plenty of room to operate being surrounded by four 3 point threats.

“There’ll be times that Julius might be playing backup 5 and Kuz at the 4. There’s times where Larry might be backup 5, Julius at the 4, and Kuz at the 3. There’s a lot of responsibility, but all they need to do is know that when they’re on the court they gotta play hard and play the way that we want to play and they’ll be fine.”

Walton’s assertion that the starting spot will be about more than just who is playing best individually is interesting, and could be read as reasoning for how well Kuzma is playing not being enough to get him named as the team’s starting power forward on opening night.

At this point, I think the only starting spots that are locked down are Lonzo at the 1 and Brook at the 5. I'm OK with KCP at the 2 even if JC has been playing better during the preseason, but that's because I feel KCP's defense is needed and KCP is a better fit alongside Lonzo. As for who starts at the 3 and 4, I think Luke needs to go with whichever 2 guys makes the starting unit as strong as possible.

I agree with Luke that you don't just roll out the 2 guys who are playing the best at those positions without considering chemistry. However, I also don't think the Lakers can afford to strengthen the 2nd unit at the expense of the 1st. Who cares how dynamic our 2nd unit is if they are constantly playing catch-up as a result of the 1st unit's deficiencies? We saw how that played out last season.

At this point, I don't like the idea of starting BI and Nance. We all know about BI's struggles, and at this point, it would be better to let him build confidence against 2nd stringers. Nance is a nice intangibles guy, but those intangibles don't make up for the fact that he's a reluctant offensive player and an average rebounder at the 4. A starting lineup of Lonzo, KCP, BI, Nance and Lopez won't be able to score enough, and I don't think that unit can hang it's hat on creating TOs and getting out in transition.

If we start Kuz and Randle at the 3 and 4, then that improves our offense significantly while not losing much (if anything) on defense. I don't need to justify why Kuz needs to start, but Randle is the best fit at the 4 as well. Some may not like his habit of stopping the ball at times, but he also provides rebounding and elite speed at the 4. Also, in terms of isos, I trust him more to iso than anyone else on the team because he has the biggest speed advantage by position and has the handles to exploit slower 4s. He'll also have plenty of room to operate being surrounded by four 3 point threats.

The 2nd unit will still be potent with Ennis, JC, BI and Nance.

Agreed but I don't see Luke rolling with that lineup for a significant amount of time, much less starting it. I think Ingram is the third guy on the team with a guaranteed starting spot, no matter how much Kuzma were to out play him. And because we know Luke is strangely attached to preserving the second unit at the expense of the first, I don't even think we'd see that lineup even if Ingram missed time with an injury (knock on wood). He'd start Deng at the 3 and say it was to preserve the rotation.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven._________________It was reminiscent of one of those Most Interesting Man in the World advertisements: "I don't always shoot 6-for-28 from the field, but when I do, I become the youngest player in league history to score 28,000 career points."

That's just stupid then. There isn't enough talent in our starting unit to not start a player who is far more productive and a better fit in terms of chemistry. Last year, it made sense to bring Lou off the bench despite the fact that he was easily our most productive player, but that's because our backcourt was crowded and Lou wasn't a good fit next to DLO. We also can't forget the fact that DLO and Swaggy proved to be a potent offensive backcourt.

None of that can be said regarding the Kuz/BI situation. Kuz is outplaying BI by a mile and is a great fit for our starting unit.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

That's just stupid then. There isn't enough talent in our starting unit to not start a player who is far more productive and a better fit in terms of chemistry. Last year, it made sense to bring Lou off the bench despite the fact that he was easily our most productive player, but that's because our backcourt was crowded and Lou wasn't a good fit next to DLO. We also can't forget the fact that DLO and Swaggy proved to be a potent offensive backcourt.

None of that can be said regarding the Kuz/BI situation. Kuz is outplaying BI by a mile and is a great fit for our starting unit.

I agree, but I'd honestly be shocked Luke started Kuz over Ingram any time soon.

That's just stupid then. There isn't enough talent in our starting unit to not start a player who is far more productive and a better fit in terms of chemistry. Last year, it made sense to bring Lou off the bench despite the fact that he was easily our most productive player, but that's because our backcourt was crowded and Lou wasn't a good fit next to DLO. We also can't forget the fact that DLO and Swaggy proved to be a potent offensive backcourt.

None of that can be said regarding the Kuz/BI situation. Kuz is outplaying BI by a mile and is a great fit for our starting unit.

I agree, but I'd honestly be shocked Luke started Kuz over Ingram any time soon.

Me too. I just feel that winning need to take precedence this season. I'm OK with BI starting at the beginning of the season, but I hope Luke is willing and able to move him to the 2nd unit if he continues to struggle. BI's development shouldn't handicap our ability to win games.

That's just stupid then. There isn't enough talent in our starting unit to not start a player who is far more productive and a better fit in terms of chemistry. Last year, it made sense to bring Lou off the bench despite the fact that he was easily our most productive player, but that's because our backcourt was crowded and Lou wasn't a good fit next to DLO. We also can't forget the fact that DLO and Swaggy proved to be a potent offensive backcourt.

None of that can be said regarding the Kuz/BI situation. Kuz is outplaying BI by a mile and is a great fit for our starting unit.

I agree, but I'd honestly be shocked Luke started Kuz over Ingram any time soon.

Me too. I just feel that winning need to take precedence this season. I'm OK with BI starting at the beginning of the season, but I hope Luke is willing and able to move him to the 2nd unit if he continues to struggle. BI's development shouldn't handicap our ability to win games.

I agree. We can't think of this as strictly a development/tank year. in the words of Herm Edwards, you play to win the game. If starting Kuzma gives us the best chance to win the game, Luke has an obligation to do it.

Joined: 23 Jun 2011Posts: 3144Location: Over the River And Through The Woods

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:02 am Post subject:

manlisten wrote:

KBH wrote:

manlisten wrote:

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

Youre laughing but the Nets haves looked way better then we have this preseason.

Joined: 23 Jun 2011Posts: 3144Location: Over the River And Through The Woods

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:03 am Post subject:

KBH wrote:

manlisten wrote:

KBH wrote:

manlisten wrote:

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

You're wasting your time tryin to explain man. All tha matters is they got smoked by the 76ers apparently lol.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

We don't have much talent either TBH. I think the praise for Brooklyn and Atkinson is a bit much at this point. Again, purely looking at results, they won 20 games last year (and yes, I understand the talent cupboard is bare there, but you get judged on results) so it's crazy to anoint them as a team and coach that knows what they're doing after a few preseason games. I'm not saying he can't be a great coach - I do think he's a very good teacher that has a bright future. But right now, they're a bottom feeder and haven't accomplished anything (just like us), so I don't understand all the pining around here for their situation. There's a hint of "the grass is always greener on the other side" with those comments, which are kinda unfair to Luke, who's also only coached for one year and trying to build something from the ground up here.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

We don't have much talent either TBH. I think the praise for Brooklyn and Atkinson is a bit much at this point. Again, purely looking at results, they won 20 games last year (and yes, I understand the talent cupboard is bare there, but you get judged on results) so it's crazy to anoint them as a team and coach that knows what they're doing after a few preseason games. I'm not saying he can't be a great coach - I do think he's a very good teacher that has a bright future. But right now, they're a bottom feeder and haven't accomplished anything (just like us), so I don't understand all the pining around here for their situation. There's a hint of "the grass is always greener on the other side" with those comments, which are kinda unfair to Luke, who's also only coached for one year and trying to build something from the ground up here.

We definitely have more raw talent. And again, it's not simply about winning. It's about how a team plays/executes. For example, the Celtics only won 26 games in Brad Stevens' rookie season, but that had more to do with his roster than his coaching. You could see immediately that they were running effective offense, but they just didn't have the horses. The same goes with Atkinson in Brooklyn. Without even getting into the fact that Jeremy Lin only played 31 games and they were much better when he was healthy, you could see that they're executing their offense but they just didn't have the players. And it's even more evident this preseason now that they've added players like Russell, Crabbe, etc., that fit what they're trying to do. Conversely, my criticisms about Luke have nothing to do with the fact that we won 26 games last season. It's that our offense devolves into iso ball after running one action, the team's transition defense still being poor, our half court defense still being poor, strange rotations and too many games where apparently guys aren't giving effort. These are coaching issues.

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

So what you're saying is that Atkinson made a blatantly poor coaching decision which led to a blowout loss against a more talented team?

.......

Luke went thru a similar progression as an assistant coach at Memphis to D League player development to Warriors assistant to head coach. Neither has really proven anything as a head coach at the NBA level but Luke has that best start in NBA history under his belt at least. It's just baseless at this point in time to act like Atkinson is so vastly superior to Luke._________________It was reminiscent of one of those Most Interesting Man in the World advertisements: "I don't always shoot 6-for-28 from the field, but when I do, I become the youngest player in league history to score 28,000 career points."

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

We don't have much talent either TBH. I think the praise for Brooklyn and Atkinson is a bit much at this point. Again, purely looking at results, they won 20 games last year (and yes, I understand the talent cupboard is bare there, but you get judged on results) so it's crazy to anoint them as a team and coach that knows what they're doing after a few preseason games. I'm not saying he can't be a great coach - I do think he's a very good teacher that has a bright future. But right now, they're a bottom feeder and haven't accomplished anything (just like us), so I don't understand all the pining around here for their situation. There's a hint of "the grass is always greener on the other side" with those comments, which are kinda unfair to Luke, who's also only coached for one year and trying to build something from the ground up here.

We definitely have more raw talent. And again, it's not simply about winning. It's about how a team plays/executes. For example, the Celtics only won 26 games in Brad Stevens' rookie season, but that had more to do with his roster than his coaching. You could see immediately that they were running effective offense, but they just didn't have the horses. The same goes with Atkinson in Brooklyn. Without even getting into the fact that Jeremy Lin only played 31 games and they were much better when he was healthy, you could see that they're executing their offense but they just didn't have the players. And it's even more evident this preseason now that they've added players like Russell, Crabbe, etc., that fit what they're trying to do. Conversely, my criticisms about Luke have nothing to do with the fact that we won 26 games last season. It's that our offense devolves into iso ball after running one action, the team's transition defense still being poor, our half court defense still being poor, strange rotations and too many games where apparently guys aren't giving effort. These are coaching issues.

What were you so impressed with about the Nets offense last year, and what are you so impressed with this year in preseason? Please go into specifics.

Last edited by Username on Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:27 am; edited 3 times in total

Atkinson did a tremendous job with the Nets last season. What was their record again?

lol Watch the Nets play and you'll see a more organized offense that looks to push opportunistically, gets back on defense and makes the proper rotations. Everything we still struggle to do. I like Luke but Atkinson is pretty much what I envisioned Luke would be and he's doing it with less raw talent on his roster.

I was reading all that praise for Atkinson as I was watching the Nets get completely smoked by Philly . It was just funny how MJST was being so critical of Luke while pining for a guy that's even less proven.

lol The Nets are a team with far less talent than the Sixers, it's not surprising that they could run off the floor. The Nets got into a huge hole when both Russell and Lin went out at the same time, which they can't afford to do for any extended period of time because no one else can run their offense. Also, in no world is Atkinson less proven than Luke. Atkinson grinded his way from the bottom as a player development coach to head coach. Luke is where he is largely because he's had the right relationships to expedite his ascent.

So what you're saying is that Atkinson made a blatantly poor coaching decision which led to a blowout loss against a more talented team?

.......

Luke went thru a similar progression as an assistant coach at Memphis to D League player development to Warriors assistant to head coach. Neither has really proven anything as a head coach at the NBA level but Luke has that best start in NBA history under his belt at least. It's just baseless at this point in time to act like Atkinson is so far superior to Luke.

lol The fact that you're going to die on this hill of the Sixers game is hilarious. You don't care about facts and context, just that they got blown off the floor in one game after starting the preseason 3-0, with one of the wins being against Miami. I'll leave it at this. I've watched every Nets game in the preseason and every Lakers game in the preseason. The Nets are more organized on offense, get back and rotate better and get back on defense better than we do. In addition, using his skills as a player development coach, he helped Brook Lopez make 134 threes last season which made him an appealing player to us. The Nets already had less talent than us managed to win just six games fewer than we did despite their second-best player Jeremy Lin playing in just 31 games. Looking at objective information, Kenny Atkinson has done a better job than Luke Walton has as a coach.

And, yes, he has more experience and was better prepared to be a head coach after four seasons as a developmental coach and then four seasons as an assistant. Luke was an assistant at Memphis for three months and then got a job on Kerr's staff because of their connections with Arizona and Phil Jackson. Then, he got the Lakers job because of his connections to the Lakers. Saying Luke has gotten opportunities at a faster pace than most is again based on objective, factual information.